In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

> > I'm supposed to say something [in Washington next week] about: (1) how aware patients in online support groups are of the various online ethics and quality initiatives, (2) to what extent those initiatives influence their use of online resources, (3) what other methods they use to decide whom to trust, and (4) the ethics of facilitating such groups. > > > > Any comments on any of the above? (Remember, these are comments I might present.) > > Or, looking at it another way, I'd be curious: > > 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member? > > 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way? > > Thanks! > > Bob

1. I begin to trust information when it gets repeatedmany times by many different people...such as effexorwithdrawl is aweful.Especially when it coincides w/the manufactures notes.

In reply to Re: How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Elizabeth on October 30, 2001, at 12:28:04

On looking at information and trusting what you read, it's kind of like quantifying psychic pain.It's hard to do.

When I read about a disaster in a newspaper, perhaps a couple family members killed in an auto accident, I know that the dry reporting in no sense conveys the devastated emotions of the people involved. It's hard for me to be connected.

I lurked for a few months on psycho babble before finally posting, and, before this, I intensely searched anything I could on depression. The research provided good information, but like the newspaper reporting, it was cold, clinical, and didn't seem to touch the suffering I was experiencing.

When I stumbled on psycho babble, wow! Here were not just facts, but the struggles of the posters made me quickly identify with them and their diseases. Trust? I can't help but trust their advice (even though it may sometimes be off base) because their experiences have made a medication or treatment very real and valid to me. Somehow, it's worth more. Believe it or not, I would trust the advice of some posters over some of the doctors I have used in the past.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

Gee, Dr. B, We are VERY clearly aware of PB and PSB guidelines! However, once I got through your hoops,I guess I passed.

As to whom to trust, and what criteria one should use in this discernment. The most prevalent method of knowing who to trust, is experience on the specific site. See who answers the questions objectively, and better yet, provides links to scientific data to substantiate their answers.

As we have unfortunately seen, some of us, at times have gotten a bit carried away, and had to be temporarily banned from posting (you know who I mean).

Others of us have actually become friends, and communicate privately by email. A few of us have remained loyal to others during times when they have, perhaps, made some controversial postings.

As for ultimate knowledge, I actually research most of my data on a serach engine such as Google. I use the PDR to relate medicine data.

From this particular site, I get generalized support, a chance to vent to somebody who just might understand where I am coming from, or has already been there, as well as the feeling of community. As such, we will always have times of arguments or heated discussion, but ultimately, the apologetic are forgiven.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

Dr. Bob:

What leads me to trust a particular source of information, particularly where psychological medications are the subject, is an open-minded exchange of ideas and the lack of an "agenda". As an example, when I was first put on medication, which included Xanax, I did some web searches and found what I now know to be the "anti-benzo zealots". What I read there terrified me. It was only after doing further research that I realized how biased these sites were, that they were really advocacy sites rather than providers of information. Interestingly, there are now also "anti-SSRI" sites also, which advocate rather than inform (and as an attorney, I sure know the difference!)

The point is, that when it comes to the subject of medication, there is nothing that is all good or all bad. As I indicated in a post a couple of months ago (in an exchange with Cam), the search for truth when it comes to meds reminds me of Hegelian logic; the truth is neither the "thesis" (i.e., the claim by the manufacturer that a particular medication is some sort of wonder drug) nor the "antithesis" (i.e., the claims by those who blame all their problems on their medications and/or their side effects), but rather is a "synthesis", i.e., a sober analysis of both positive and negative aspects and a reasoned determination as to an appropriate course of therapy.

Therefore, information which is balanced and fair is trustworthy, whereas that which comes from an advocacy viewpoint (either by the manufacturers or the debunkers) is suspect. In this regard, Psycho-Babble is the most balanced site I have seen on these issues, which is why I've stuck around even though I've been basically in full remission from my depression for many months now (due in part to medication, specifically Celexa, about which I share information with others on this site). I joined several other Boards but lost interest when I realized that any questioning of the "accepted truth" on those Boards opened me up to attack. I was even personally "analyzed" in a post by a particular psychiatrist who runs an anti-anxiety site when I questioned his blanket condemnation of SSRIs! I still cannot believe he abused his authority in this fashion (my own doc described it as "dangerous" when it came up in one of our sessions).

I hope this is of some use to you. If you would like to communicate directly with me on this or any other subject, just let me know and I will send you my email address.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

> 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member?

Experience, and a lot of reading. I trust another group member if they can clarify &/or substantiate any claims they make (ie. if they know what they are talking about, and can prove it).

I don't know if I fully trust any site, implicitely. Like all scientific information, any "truth" today can become an "untruth" as new information is discovered. I believe that if you can find some posters who know what they are talking about (ascertained by my knowledge and experiences), and state their opinions objectively (sans emotionality), I am more likely to return to that site. Sites that preach or tend to support one view become stale very fast. > > 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way?

I try to pass on any knowledge I have learned from what I have read &/or what I have seen clinically. I try to clarify the source of my answer according to where I came across the information. I try to answer the question in language that the poster can understand, using analogies where necessary.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

Probably of all the mental health sites I've read, I've found this to be the most factual- to the point of references being supplied. I realize that everyone has a different reaction to a drug, but many times I've spoken to my computer savvy shrink about x number of people suggesting a particular strategy for symptoms. As for the emotional support, I selfishly hold on to that. Hope this helps- judy

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

> 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member?

If the writer(s) seems knowledgeable (I guess I judge that by how logical and 'lucid' they seem) then that initially leads to some trust regarding the information they provide. I then go to the Google search engine to get more details/verify what they have said.As for trusting a website, only the confidentiality/encryption issues matter to me.

> 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way?

I pass on my personal experiences only and try to be objective: not 'pushing' or 'trashing' anything in particular.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

Well Bob, may I call you Bob? I only get the barest direction and new concepts online. I hear other peoples experiences with meds, doctors and DEPRESSION, then I talk to my doctor. I discuss any and all issues with him. I mean there are some srewballs on-line. I mostly use psycho-babble to validate my reality by identifying with others. But I one does read some interesting things. Also, sometimes, valuable things. Thank you.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

> 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member?

Most information can be trusted to reflect the unique perspective of the information provider. For better or worse, this site can be trusted to reflect a perspective of individuals who prefer a pharmacological approach to treatment of mental health problems. In reading this site, I might develop more trust for that approach as a valid choice more than I might otherwise, in so far as I better understand the ambitions and limitations of psychopharmacology. The site also tends to confirm my suspicions about the limitations of a pharmacological approach. At its best, for me, this site inspires further research.

As long as the site substantially conforms to its claims, I consider it a trustworthy forum. I don't trust the claims of the site to represent the middle ground or a consensus opinion of what is civil or acceptable on the Internet or in society. The standards of the site don't reflect society's standards but rather the standards of the individual administrator. And the reliability of the forum does not infer reliable information - rather it infers that the information substantially reflects the unique perspectives of the participants. I presume that the forum has tended to self-select a group of participants who share common ideas, so this site cannot be trusted to represent a complete consideration of the full spectrum of all possible valid approaches.

I would trust some people here to drive my car, if I were in the passenger seat. I wouldn't trust anyone here enough to loan them my car, unless I had further information about their background and their intentions. I would not trust anyone here enough to accept their recommendation of an appropriate medication for me. I suspect much information I find here is provided to reinforce the providers' individual preferences more so than it is to help me achieve my unique personal goals. But understanding others' experiences can help me improve my social skills and thereby to improve my personal coping skills.

> 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way?

I try to provide information in a form that I hope will promote critical thinking. I also tend to present information in a way that responses will help me better understand the information, and better understand why the information was important to me.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member?

Information -- Known credibility in a field, i.e. published reports. Also, repeated information about a certain subject.

Web Site -- The tone set by the adminstrator is important. Frankly, the look and set up of the site affect me. I don't read the regulations, unless forced to. Gee, maybe that quiz wasn't such a bad idea afterall.;)

Group members -- Intuition. I think you have to be pretty open to communicate with people on the internet - take what they say at face value, until you start to suspect otherwise. If not, you wouldn't have a fighting chance to make connections or gain support. That's why when posters such as "gldngdss" or whatever it was invade a space, it is trying.

2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way?

Absolutely try to present it in a certain way. Don't ever want folks to think I have a medical background or such for some reason - that it's just personal experience. But that should be clear on this, or any, support site. Reason and some caution are valid here.

Thank You, Dr. Bob! This is the only site I visit for support. The others just don't make the mark. Not even close.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

Bob,

I haven't read all the prior posts, but here ismy take on trust. I've learned alot and experienceda lot on many different meds that work in a certain way or have certain side effects. IfI see someone posting responsees to questions ina manner that is consistent with what I would sayin my areas of "knowledge", then I generallytrust this person's statements on issuesthat I am not familiar with.

With regards to presentation of information,I have found that I tend to overload peoplewith medical specifics as to why I recommenda over b or question someone's action. Mytendency to be difficult to understand wasmade clear to me in a group therapy thatI attended. My audience here is not typical of my own circle of acquaintances.

-john

> > I'm supposed to say something [in Washington next week] about: (1) how aware patients in online support groups are of the various online ethics and quality initiatives, (2) to what extent those initiatives influence their use of online resources, (3) what other methods they use to decide whom to trust, and (4) the ethics of facilitating such groups. > > > > Any comments on any of the above? (Remember, these are comments I might present.) > > Or, looking at it another way, I'd be curious: > > 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member? > > 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way? > > Thanks! > > Bob

In reply to Re: How do you decide what to trust? » Dr. Bob, posted by JohnX2 on October 31, 2001, at 11:27:29

I wanted to mention that some people do a reallygood job of posting specific references to claimsthat they make. I am generallt sloppy and don'tdo this, but usually it is when I see an unansweredquestion and would like to at least give theperson some iota of a response.

I have found a lot of reliable information onthe web, and also chased the farces. But on thisnewsgroup the information is generally reliable.If someone posts something in error, generallythere will be a follow up by someone else.

One thing that does worry me greatly about anenvironment like this is the fact that the audience on psycho-babble is probably not representative of the typical psychiatric population. A lot of people go into the doctorget a zoloft,paxil,effexor prescription and 2weeks later feel awesome. I doubt these are thetypes of people lurking on this news group, andit makes me fear that people may dismiss themore traditional treatment approaches.

-john

> > Bob, > > I haven't read all the prior posts, but here is > my take on trust. I've learned alot and experienced > a lot on many different meds that work in a > certain way or have certain side effects. If > I see someone posting responsees to questions in > a manner that is consistent with what I would say > in my areas of "knowledge", then I generally > trust this person's statements on issues > that I am not familiar with. > > With regards to presentation of information, > I have found that I tend to overload people > with medical specifics as to why I recommend > a over b or question someone's action. My > tendency to be difficult to understand was > made clear to me in a group therapy that > I attended. My audience here is not typical of > my own circle of acquaintances. > > -john > > > > > > > I'm supposed to say something [in Washington next week] about: (1) how aware patients in online support groups are of the various online ethics and quality initiatives, (2) to what extent those initiatives influence their use of online resources, (3) what other methods they use to decide whom to trust, and (4) the ethics of facilitating such groups. > > > > > > Any comments on any of the above? (Remember, these are comments I might present.) > > > > Or, looking at it another way, I'd be curious: > > > > 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member? > > > > 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Bob

In reply to Re: How do you decide what to trust?, posted by JohnX2 on October 31, 2001, at 12:13:33

Hi, everyone,

Thanks for all your responses -- and positive feedback!

But is everyone really so careful all the time? If so, are concerns about the quality of information online exaggerated? Do we not need to worry about unreliable information because it'll just be ignored?

I realize another issue is that people here might not be a representative sample of all people online...

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2001, at 23:34:40

I have a question for you. I suspect you maybe elusive. ;)What is your take on the quality of informationposted on this board?

-john

> Hi, everyone, > > Thanks for all your responses -- and positive feedback! > > But is everyone really so careful all the time? If so, are concerns about the quality of information online exaggerated? Do we not need to worry about unreliable information because it'll just be ignored? > > I realize another issue is that people here might not be a representative sample of all people online... > > Bob

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

> > Hello. I just joined this board, and I usually trust people whose semantic or language "cues" seem credible or authentic. For me, I usually trust those who are to-the-point, consistent in their thoughts, or who really resonate to what I wrote. From an ethical point of view, I try very hard to use the pronoun "I" as much as possible to get accross that it's just my own, personal point of view. And in the world of psychiatric medication, I have never found this to me more true; namely, that everyone has different bodily reactions to medications, as well as ways of dealing with their own psychosis. I have personally found it helpful to be in this group because one, it's structured very well; two, I have found people who are going through the same things I am, even if they don't seem to know what to do--just the fact that they're out there helps; three, I have found it easy to trust some of the voices coming across on this board and was introduced to some ideas I hadn't even thought of.I think that as long as people are aware of the risks encountered when non-professionals are expressing their opinions about serious matters, I think it's okay; however, I don't think it would hurt to also advise non-professional writers on boards like these that, due to the serious nature of these groups, that they respect the medical histories and complexities facing others.Hope things go well in Washington. And thanks for creating this board. It personally helped me out.

I'm supposed to say something [in Washington next week] about: (1) how aware patients in online support groups are of the various online ethics and quality initiatives, (2) to what extent those initiatives influence their use of online resources, (3) what other methods they use to decide whom to trust, and (4) the ethics of facilitating such groups. > > > > Any comments on any of the above? (Remember, these are comments I might present.) > > Or, looking at it another way, I'd be curious: > > 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member? > > 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way? > > Thanks! > > Bob

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2001, at 23:34:40

> Dr. Bob: Yes, I think people's perceptions of what they find quality in does affect their own concerns, sometimes to their own detriment. More specific, it seems that the more quality a person perceives in something he or she reads, the less concerned he or she is about the veracity of what they read. Humans are just faulty. We find credibility in things that might be obviously duplicitous to a bystander. Groups do come from all sorts of societies and personalities, but they're all operating under some kind of need, good or bad. If they don't fulfill their need there, they'll find another way to fulfill it. I can see group boards doing beneficial things for people as well as malign things. It all depends on the agenda of the person reading. Are chat boards, or people, responsible for the way someone perceives what they write? I don't think so. If that were the case, we'd all be in jail at some point in our lives! >

Hi, everyone, > > Thanks for all your responses -- and positive feedback! > > But is everyone really so careful all the time? If so, are concerns about the quality of information online exaggerated? Do we not need to worry about unreliable information because it'll just be ignored? > > I realize another issue is that people here might not be a representative sample of all people online... > > Bob

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2001, at 23:34:40

> > I realize another issue is that people here might not be a representative sample of all people online... >

I think you may have hit a key point here. I do have a background that makes it hard for me to trust others. I cannot speak for others, though. All I know is that I am pretty careful with the information I get. Then again, I don't trust people easily -- here on the internet or in person. So I am going to check it out. It takes time in either realm for me to trust -- people have to prove themselves. The difference with people on-line is that it takes longer, I think. And depending on the information, I may always get a second opinion. So to answer your question -- yes, I'm pretty careful, most, if not all of the time.

In reply to How do you decide what to trust?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2001, at 1:56:11

> > I'm supposed to say something [in Washington next week] about: (1) how aware patients in online support groups are of the various online ethics and quality initiatives, (2) to what extent those initiatives influence their use of online resources, (3) what other methods they use to decide whom to trust, and (4) the ethics of facilitating such groups. > > > > Any comments on any of the above? (Remember, these are comments I might present.) > > Or, looking at it another way, I'd be curious: > > 1. From the perspective of someone looking for information, how do you decide what information to trust? What leads you to trust a web site? Another group member? > > 2. From the perspective of someone providing information, do you just pass it on, or do you try to present it in a certain way? > > Thanks! > > Bob

1) I would never consider becoming a part of a web site group or any support group without researching information about the health problem that I was experiencing and/or medications that I was taking. With a baseline of knowledge, I seek personal experiences as well as additional information from web sites such as this one. Having some foundation of information allows me to sense what posts are trustworthy and/or valid.There are a number of very articulate, well-versed individuals on this website who provide a great deal of useful, well-referenced and well-researched reports and data, in addition to realistic experiences. Though I would never replace a doctor-patient relationship with this, it certainly augments my treatment process and I value many of the posts. 2) I try to stress, probably redundantly, that any personal experiences that I share are JUST that: my own personal experiences. In addition to providing my scenarios, I generally give what is expected based on Rx information (i.e. known/expected side-effects, etc.)to compare/contrast with my own reactions. In this process of 'comparing notes,' I don't think we are actually trying to mimic other people's treatment, I thinking that we are often trying to validate our own experiences which may be in conflict with what our physicians may be expecting. Though this is digressing some, I believe it is important to say that one of the biggest 'draws' of such a website is this validation of our reactions and progress, when the literature, and our physicians insist otherwise.

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2001, at 23:34:40

> Hi, everyone, > > Thanks for all your responses -- and positive feedback! > > But is everyone really so careful all the time? If so, are concerns about the quality of information online exaggerated? Do we not need to worry about unreliable information because it'll just be ignored? > > I realize another issue is that people here might not be a representative sample of all people online... > > Bob

Certainly the disclaimers that you (and other web sites) provide should be sufficient to advise the population that this is not a replacement for treatment nor a 'clearinghouse' of documented mental health information. However, realizing that there are some people who would disregard the disclaimers and inappropriately use the web site, I think it is important to supervise the site (which you do). Yes, it seems that those individuals who participate in psycho-babble are more informed and aware than the general public, but there may be more 'lurkers,' than we are aware of who could/would use the this inappropriately.

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2001, at 23:34:40

Dr. B, IMHO, Those able to GET to PB or PSB are already a level or so above the "average" person treated for psyscho/social disorders. As such, I would think this forum would have to be looked at exclusively as a distinct and unique source of data, not applicable to the "world at large". Of course, that is your interest, I guess, to discern how the net works in therapy.

Careful? I doubt anybody runs out and pops the first pill that someone else suggests is just the ticket for them. I Do believe that many people are nascent in their knowledge level about treatment options. So many people have been conditioned to believe that Doctors are demigods, and their counsel never to be questioned. I have two family members who are physicians, they are no more intelligent than me, just more dedicated. I can glean relevant information from a variety of objective sources, and make my own educated conclusions on most medical issues. What I DO lack is clinical observation, and the requisite first-hand observation that I will never be able to attain. My point (yes, I was trying to make one) is that Docs are NOT perfect, are NOT the last word, and ARE human and as such are just as vulnerable to error as the rest of us.

What PB and PSB provide is a sounding board inabling us to find an objectivity ammended by ancedotal experiences of others. In this capacity, the board is extemely useful.

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time? » Dr. Bob, posted by Kaysey on November 1, 2001, at 6:52:56

> > I'm certain everyone is not careful or deliberative of how they use what they learn. I'm not sure how you account for that however. Medlib is correct in her statement that extended exposure to the board gives you a better sense of who knows what they're talking about. However, if your ability to understand the science of psychoparmacology is as limited as mine is, then the board is still very valuable but only for limited well defined purposes. e.g. the sharing of experiences, the gathering of enough information to help you formulate questions for your own physician etc. The person who hands out incorrect info and passes that off as fact is dangerous and I've seen lots of examples of where others try to bring those people to task. However, misinformation or incomplete information or misleading information is not going to always be picked up on and unless you want to become an information policemen, the best that you can do may be to make people understand the limitations of the board.

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2001, at 23:34:40

> Hi, everyone, > > Thanks for all your responses -- and positive feedback! > > But is everyone really so careful all the time? If so, are concerns about the quality of information online exaggerated? Do we not need to worry about unreliable information because it'll just be ignored? > I think people *believe* the information they are offering to be relatively accurate(an "opinion" if you will). A doctor you visit personally is going to give an "opinion" based on the clinical evidence you present balanced against a set of statistical generalizations+clinical experience and propose a treatment. I don't think online information and support is the same as *treatment*. Given that it is not really "treatment", I think that there is a lot of unwarranted concern about online info being harmful in some way. I think people are going to be as "careful" as they can be most of the time. "Unreliable" information is also just that-information. I am not paying anyone to give me bad information.

> I realize another issue is that people here might not be a representative sample of all people online... > > Bob

In reply to Re: Is everyone really so careful all the time?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2001, at 23:34:40

Hi,

i'd like to think that i'm totally objective about what i read, but i'm not !!

I only recently started taking effexor xr, the first anti depressant i have ever taken. I listened carefully to what my doctor had to say about the drug and left satisfied that although i might suffer a few side effects in the first week, eventually the positive benefits would far outweigh the negative and that this was one of the safest drugs i could take.

However upon taking my first 75mg, i felt pretty awful. Thats when i turned to the internet, trying to look for some 'support',hoping to find some success stories to help me through the tough days.

However all i seemed to be pulling up we're horror stories, it literally seemed as though i couldn't find anything positive about effexor and i admit i was petrified. If i had been reading about a drug i wasn't taking i'm sure that i would have been 99% objective, but effexor was in my system, this was different! I didn't really care about the source, everything seems valid when you're scared.My rational seemed to go out the window and my thinking was along the line, 'there's no smoke without fire'(sorry about the cliche !).

I read so much about terrible withdrawal, that within a week i had made an appointment with my doctor and asked to be switched to prozac. He tried to persaude me otherwise and told me that all anti depressants had side effects, but i had read too much and would never feel at ease taking it, so eventually he wrote me a presciption for what i wanted. I only took effexor for 7 days, but the four days without were pretty terrible! As soon as i started taking prozac i started to feel better, i only seemed to have one side effect with this, racing thoughts.

This time around, i promised myself that i wouldn't look up prozac on the internet !Although i have to admit that i couldn't help it, although i tended to steer clear of websites like 'prozac survivors'. Dr Bob's site however seemed much more balanced and i was much more inclined to take peoples opinions and experiences as valid, although i'm always aware that not everything and everyone is for real !The fact that i feel fine on prozac also means i am much more likely to discard something negative that i read. People tend not to write about their positive experiences, but those who have had negative definately use the internet as a place to vent, rant and perhaps exaggerate their experiences. However its not just negative information that i'll discard, if something seems overly positive, I'm inclined to think its been endorsed by the company that made it or something !

I would never take actual pharmaceutical advice from someone one line, for example if someone told me it would be a good idea to increase my dose or to mix it with cough medicine. I leave that to my doctor.Reading about other peoples experiences are interesting though and help me to feel much less isolated in my battle against depression.

Hey, Dr. Bob, are we gonna be able to read ure article somewhere online ????

Hi, everyone, > > Thanks for all your responses -- and positive feedback! > > But is everyone really so careful all the time? If so, are concerns about the quality of information online exaggerated? Do we not need to worry about unreliable information because it'll just be ignored? > > I realize another issue is that people here might not be a representative sample of all people online... > > Bob